Public Bill Committee

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Schedule 7

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 136, in schedule 7, page 69, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 4 (child support maintenance), in subsection (10)(a), after “written maintenance agreement” insert “or a registered minute of agreement”’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 137, in schedule 7, page 69, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) In that section, in subsection (10)(aa) (which refers to maintenance orders)—
(a) insert at beginning “a registered minute of agreement made after 5th April 1993 or”
(b) for “one year” substitute “48 months”’.
No. 138, in schedule 7, page 69, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 7 (right of child in Scotland to apply for assessment), in subsection (10), after “written maintenance agreement” insert “or a registered minute of agreement”’.
No. 139, in schedule 7, page 69, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) In section 9 (agreements about maintenance), for subsection 1, substitute—
“(1) In this section—
“maintenance agreement” means any agreement for the making, or for securing the making, of periodical payments by way of maintenance, or in Scotland aliment, to or for the benefit of any child.
“registered minute of agreement” means any agreement containing provisions relating wholly or partly to maintenance, or in Scotland aliment, to or for the benefit of any child which has been registered for execution in the Books of Council and Session or the sheriff court books.”’.
No. 140, in schedule 7, page 69, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) In that section, in subsection (2), at end add “or a registered minute of agreement”’.
No. 141, in schedule 7, page 69, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) In that section, in subsection (3)—
(a) after “section 4(10)(a)” insert “and (aa)”
(b) after “written maintenance agreement” insert “or a registered minute of agreement.”’.
No. 142, in schedule 7, page 72, line 9, at end insert—
‘“registered minute of agreement” has the meaning given in section 9(1) of the Child Support Act 1991.’.

James Plaskitt: Before we rose for the break I was trying to reach the end of my final sentence, but I did not quite make it before the clock struck. In view of the reassurances that I hope that I was giving to hon. Members, I was just about to ask the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw his amendment and, if the hon. Gentleman was still minded to press it to a vote, to urge my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Paul Rowen: I listened carefully to what the Minister said on this group of amendments, but, although I understand his assurances, we Liberal Democrats feel that important principles are at stake.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 137, in schedule 7, page 69, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) In that section, in subsection (10)(aa) (which refers to maintenance orders)—
(a) insert at beginning “a registered minute of agreement made after 5th April 1993 or”
(b) for “one year” substitute “48 months”’.
No. 135, in schedule 7, page 69, line 26, at end insert—
‘() In section 32(7) (regulations about appeals), after “include” insert “—
(a) provision with respect to the period within which a right of appeal under the regulations may be exercised;
(b) ”.’.—[Mr. Plaskitt.]

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 54

Transition

Amendments made: No. 130, in clause 54, page 42, line 33, after ‘Sections’ insert ‘20(5A),’.
No. 131, in clause 54, page 42, line 33, leave out ‘32K,’.
No. 132, in clause 54, page 42, line 37, after ‘Sections’ insert ‘20(7A),’.
No. 133, in clause 54, page 42, line 37, leave out ‘32K,’.—[Mr. Plaskitt.]

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Duty of HM Revenue and Customs to ascertain financial circumstances of non-resident parent
‘(1) In section 11 of the Child Support Act 1991 (maintenance calculations) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Where subsection (6) applies or an application for a variation under section 28 has been made by either the non-resident parent or the parent with care and any question arises concerning the income of the non-resident parent—
(a) HMRC shall take all reasonable steps to investigate and verify the financial circumstances of the non-resident parent in order to establish his income for the purposes of this Act or regulations made under it;
(b) the non-resident parent shall provide such information as is required by HMRC in order to verify the financial information submitted by him or on his behalf.”.
(2) After subsection (8) of that section insert—
“(8A) In this section “HMRC” means the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

Power of parental enforcement
‘If the Commission fails to enforce a maintenance assessment in a reasonable period, the parent with care can request that a liability order be issued which can be enforced independently through the county court.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

Financial circumstances of non-resident parent
‘(1) In section 11 of the Child Support Act 1991 (maintenance calculations) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Where subsection (6) applies or an application for a variation under section 28 has been made by either the non-resident parent or the parent with care and any question arises concerning the income of the non-resident parent—
(a) the Commission shall take all reasonable steps to investigate and verify the financial circumstances of the non-resident parent in order to establish his income for the purposes of this Act or regulations made under it;
(b) the non-resident parent shall provide such information as is required by the Commission in order to verify the financial information submitted by him or on his behalf.” ’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

Report on private arrangements
‘The Secretary of State must, within one year of the coming into force of this section, conduct and publish research on—
(a) the number of parents expected to reach private arrangements;
(b) parents’ perceptions of the efficacy of private arrangements;
(c) the possible effect of removing the compulsion for parents with care claiming state benefits to use the Commission on the number of such parents with maintenance arrangements in place.’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a probing clause, and we are seeking information from the Minister about private arrangements and, in particular, on how the new scheme will work, once it is in place. I am sure that the Minister will argue that the Government have already carried out research—for example, the indicators of future choices survey—that shows that they were correct in their estimate of the number of people who were going to move to private arrangements. However, I want to point out to the Minister that the survey was conducted with current users of the CSA to find out what they would do when CMEC comes into being—whether they will register with CMEC on the new maintenance agreement, whether they will register on the old agreement or whether they will leave the system altogether. We feel that ongoing research is needed to examine what people actually do once the commission is established.
As we have discussed, the big group at risk is those who do not enter the system at all. There will therefore be no reason for anybody to keep track of them, and a large proportion of them may well be parents on benefits who would previously have automatically enrolled before the repeal in this Bill of section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991. In particular, we want the research to focus on how many people have no maintenance arrangements in place, especially as the purpose of the Bill is to maximise the number of children for whom an effective maintenance agreement is in place. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we all want to tackle child poverty, and if we can encourage voluntary arrangements that work and ensure that parents pay their fair whack, it will help to do that. We feel that we need some sort of research to keep track of that and to ensure that some of the concerns that we have raised do not fall through a crack.
We know about the advice and information services that the commission will provide, which might be contracted out or handed over to the private and voluntary sectors. It is important for them to have an opportunity to feed back to the Government on their experiences and the people whom they see daily. Are such people going through voluntary agreements? If they are not following through those agreements, why not? What action might the Government need to take? The matter will probably not need legislation, but it might mean that the contracting out arrangements for support need to go further than the Government have envisaged.
Although the Minister may not agree with the new clause, I hope that he can assure us that some such review will be carried out and reported to the Select Committee. The private arrangement aspect of the Bill is its most novel feature, and it is the cornerstone of its success. It is not necessarily those who are in the system who are of concern, but those who move into those arrangements and might not enter into any private arrangements. If they do not enter into a private arrangement, we need to know why.

James Plaskitt: I appreciate the hon. Member for Rochdale tabling the new clause and discussing it in the way in which he did. He is right to point out that we all have a concern in seeing how the new system unfolds and ensuring that it meets the objectives that we have set for it. I remind him that the commission is required to produce an annual report of all its activities, which will always be an opportunity for hon. Members and Parliament to review its progress. It is open to the Select Committee to inquire at any time into how the new arrangements are going, but that is a matter for the Committee, not me. However, I am certain that I want to follow progress.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that the changes are big changes, especially those to the voluntary arrangements, which is another reason why it is important to take time over the transition. We need to spread knowledge about the changes and make sure that all the other organisations and bodies that are engaged with people going through the separation process become aware of the support services, which will be very important, and the move towards the far higher disregards, which will completely change the incentive for parents with care to seek arrangements under the new system.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and others in Committee that we are fully committed to ensuring that a full and comprehensive research programme is conducted to consider all the issues that he has raised, and others. Indeed, research has already told us a significant amount about all those areas, and it has helped us with the decisions that we have been making about the design and implementation of the information and support service.
As I have said, it is important not to rush research, and I am sceptical about the value of linking research programmes to legislation in the direct way set out in the new clause. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to publishing the findings of our research as soon as they are available. In the area covered by his new clause, for example, we have published independent research on the attitudes of parents towards the reforms, and we have conducted a telephone survey of a significant proportion of the current agency case load, asking about the choices that people are likely to make once they can transfer to the new arrangements.
The latter research showed that a significant proportion of CSA new scheme parents with care on benefits—almost two in five—would be likely to consider going for a voluntary arrangement, supported by the services that we plan to introduce. Unsurprisingly, the research also highlighted that there are advantages and disadvantages to voluntary arrangements and that they are not suitable for everyone. Where a voluntary arrangement is not preferred by parents, they will, of course, be supported by the statutory maintenance service.
The relationship and separation survey is also due to be published early next year. It will build on the evidence provided by the telephone survey through face-to-face interviews with around 2,500 parents who have voluntary arrangements or arrangements through the CSA or the courts. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to conduct and publish research to ensure that the new maintenance system is as effective as possible, and to evaluate its success. There will be abundant opportunities for Parliament to monitor and assess performance through various processes as we move into the new arrangements. I hope that that is sufficient to reassure the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw the motion.

Paul Rowen: In view of the Minister’s reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Management of ICT contracts
‘The Commission shall endeavour to have in place a competent single responsible owner for any major ICT contract, as defined by the Commission, until in the opinion of the Commission, the contract is working to an acceptable standard.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This brings us back to the thorny subject of the computer systems that will support CMEC, which we have touched on several times during our discussions. New clause 13 would help the computer systems to make a success of the new commission. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Public Accounts Committee’s 37th report for the 2006-07 Session said that
“the Department did not maintain the capability to be an intelligent customer”
in outsourcing most of its IT capability to EDS. Having a single senior departmental official responsible for overseeing the implementation of the computer system is an issue that Committee members have raised repeatedly with departmental officials who have come before the Committee.
It is not as though we have not been here before, not only in this Department but across Government. After some brief research this morning, I came up with the following list of Government IT projects in which things have gone wrong—the Inland Revenue tax credit system, the passport office, the Ministry of Defence asset tracking software, national insurance recording, the central veterinary laboratory database for BSE, the Libra project for magistrates courts, the national probation service’s information strategy, the Criminal Records Bureau, the National Air Traffic Services system and the national programme for information technology in the NHS, as well as the moving of the GCHQ computer system.
That is a brief list. Thankfully, not all of them were at the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is worth putting on record that the recent history of Government—of both parties, it is fair to say—has not been glorious. The new clause is a small, practical proposal to ensure that there is one individual who will see the contract all the way through. In the civil service, as elsewhere, it is not unusual for people to be moved after a time, perhaps because of other opportunities that fit their career path, but with public sector contracts of this size and importance, there is a valid case for one person earning stars on the career path by seeing the project through. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.

James Plaskitt: Before I respond specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I shall respond generally. It is a kind of mantra—time and time again we hear public sector IT contracts slated by people reeling off a list such as that. I urge, however, that it be kept in proportion. There have been some huge, remarkably successful public sector IT contracts. I pray in aid the IT programme in my Department that introduced direct payment of benefits after the phasing-out of order books. It was a huge programme and a massive investment, and it came off almost without a hitch. We have examples of projects that worked very well, as well as those that throw up problems.
It is also important to keep the issue in balance. It is not as though the same problems do not exist in the private sector. Some huge private sector IT contracts have not exactly gone smoothly. It is not just that only the poor old Government have IT problems. The issue can come up in private sector as well as public sector operations. I say that to balance the comments predictably made by the hon. Gentleman, but I reassure him that as a non-departmental public body, the commission will have to adhere to the EU and public sector procurement regulations and all associated requirements regarding value for money and transparency. In addition to the procedures under the regulations, the commission will follow the guidelines set out by the Office of Government Commerce to ensure that it maintains a rigorous approach to its procurement.
On the hon. Gentleman’s idea in the new clause, the Department for Work and Pensions and the agency already have in place a dedicated contract manager to oversee the current IT contracts. It is expected that that practice will be continued by the commission once it has been established. It will develop a commercial strategy of its own, which, as previously mentioned, will follow EU and public sector procurement regulations and Office of Government Commerce procedures, which promote the importance of contracting authorities having in place a dedicated procurement and contract management system. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman’s objective is met and that his new clause is therefore unnecessary, so I hope that he will agree to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Selous: I have heard what the Minister had said, and of course he is right that there have been huge IT projects that have been successful. He might have mentioned the Pension Service system in his own Department, which has been reasonably successful. However, independent observers and those who study the effect on our public finances agree that the overall record shows that we must do a lot better than we have in the past. Sadly, vast amounts of public money have been wasted, and the inefficiencies have meant that people using services have not been well served.
I listened carefully to what the Minister has said. He said that a senior manager is currently responsible for the project, and I believe that he said that it was expected that that person would remain in place in CMEC when it is established, but I shall stick to my guns on this one. We know enough history to learn from what has gone wrong in the past, and I wish it to be stated in the Bill that that individual will indeed stay in place until the computer contract has been bedded down. I shall therefore press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 15

Prevention of maintenance avoidance by non-resident parents
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that—
(a) where the Commission is satisfied that—
(i) a person has deprived himself of income or capital with the effect that his gross weekly income is reduced; and
(ii) the effect of that deprivation is to reduce the amount of his gross income by at least 25 per cent below that which it would otherwise have been; and
(iii) in all the circumstances of the case it would be reasonable to do so;
his gross weekly income shall be taken to include income from that source of an amount estimated by the Commission.
(b) in determining what is reasonable under sub-paragraph (1)(a)(iii) above, the Commission shall regard the person’s obligation to support his children of paramount importance.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances and to such an extent as may be prescribed—
(a) a person is to be treated as possessing income which he does not possess; and
(b) income which a person does possess is to be disregarded.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 16

Variations: Commission’s power to initiate
‘After Section 28G of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) insert—
“28H (1) The Commission may consider a variation on its own initiative (an ‘own-initiative application’), where it has information or evidence available to it which suggests that the case is one which may fall within Part 1 of Schedule 4B or in regulations made under that Part.
(2) The Commission may by regulations provide for—
(a) sections 16, 17 and 20; and
(b) sections 28A to 28G and Schedules 4A and 4B to apply with prescribed modifications in relation to such an own initiative application.”’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause would allow the commission to
“consider a variation on its own initiative”
rather than leaving it to the parent with care. At present, it is up to the parent with care to challenge a maintenance calculation and to seek a variation if they believe that the calculation does not truly reflect the non-resident parent’s financial circumstances.
In practice, it can be hard for a parent with care to take such action, and the criteria under which a variation may be granted are tightly drawn. Also, it can be difficult for the parent with care to access sufficient information and evidence regarding the non-resident parent’s financial circumstances, or to prove her case to the satisfaction of a tribunal.
The commission will have access to considerable financial information and will be sufficiently experienced to know to look at a non-resident parent’s income, and to spot an anomaly that, on investigation, would suggest a variation. Such action is often difficult for a parent with care to undertake, and they might not have the confidence or ability to take action, even when they ought to.

Michael Weir: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying but will he clarify the basis on which the commission’s staff would initiate an investigation? Investigation of a non-resident parent’s income would be instigated by information from HMRC at the time of an application. I am not clear about the basis on which the commission would begin an investigation after that, other than if a parent with care went to the commission to ask for a review.

Andrew Selous: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but, for example, an investigation ought to be initiated if the non-resident parent had significant dividend income that was logged by a different system—we should recall our earlier discussion of the different pots of income that are on separate HMRC systems. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and that the basis for initiation would be prior year HMRC tax accounts, but there could still be cases in which an assessment did not include the full scope of a person’s income. In such cases, given the separation of sources of income—I mentioned dividend income—the parents’ agreement might not fully reflect the scope of income.

Paul Rowen: I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause. We are moving to a different situation from that under the CSA, which places the onus on the parent with care to provide evidence before a variation will be made. Under the new system, the commission will progressively gain access to more information about the financial circumstances of non-resident parents with care—it will not happen overnight. It is about gaining progressively more information. There is no way that from day one of the commission’s operation its systems and HMRC’s systems will be set up in such a way that information flows smoothly and without glitches. I am thinking in particular about what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has said about dividend income, which is declared in a totally different context from that in which any other earned income is declared, and which may well be declared later.

Andrew Selous: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm my understanding that dividend income is disregarded for child support purposes, unless the parent with care seeks a variation and can prove that dividend income is being received, which they may not have the power to do. That, in part, may give a fuller answer to the hon. Member for Angus.

Paul Rowen: I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. Dividend income is a substantial part of some people’s income, so it should be taken into account. When a family splits up, the longer the split, the more difficult it is for the parent with care to say, “This is the income source that you need to look at, and therefore you need to have a variation on it.” Once the systems are operating with HMRC, during the year in which an initial income assessment is made, based on previous years, more information, which may not be directly available to the parent with care, may come to light, demonstrating that there are considerable assets that should be taken into account in any maintenance calculation.
The situation is simple: it is about allowing the commission to initiate that variation, which is an important principle. If the systems between HMRC and the commission work well, there will not be a once-over flow of information, but a continual flow of information. Knowledge and systems operation will get better. The commission’s ability to make that variation is an important flexibility that would not detract from the principles of the Bill, but would ensure that it works better. I understand that the commission may not want to burden itself by having to run checks automatically, but that is not the point. The number of parents for whom dividend or other income sources are an important part of their income is tiny but nevertheless important. When the information comes to light, it must be acted upon, so I hope that the Minister will look on the new clause favourably and understand what we are trying to do, which is to ensure that all information and income is properly taken into account.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire and for Rochdale for speaking to the new clause. I entirely understand the motivations behind what they have said, but I shall try to demonstrate that the provision already exists to achieve what they rightly seek. Sufficient powers are already at the disposal of the agency as it is—the commission as it will be—to address their points. Furthermore, the means that they have encouraged us to use would throw up some difficulties.
Sections 28A to 28G of the 1991 Act allow the rules by which a maintenance calculation is made to be varied in special circumstances. For example, a non-resident parent may incur significant travel costs in order to see their child, or a parent with care may feel that the income figure used on the assessment is inconsistent with the income needed to maintain the lifestyle of the non-resident parent. They are variations as we know them. Currently, before a variation can be made there must be an application by one of the parents, which the CSA then considers. The new clause would allow the commission itself to initiate the process of making a variation, without being asked to do so by either party involved in the case.
We are aware that parents with care can find it difficult either to make an application for a variation in the maintenance calculation or to know when to make one. Few of them are likely to have an intimate knowledge of the non-resident parent’s finances, certainly as time goes on, and particularly if they are non-resident parents who already manipulate their finances to reduce their maintenance liability. However, we do not believe that it would be helpful to have the commission make variations without an application, as the amendment proposes. First, the commission will not routinely hold all the information that would suggest the need for a variation. For example, it would be very unlikely to hold information about the lifestyle of the non-resident parent and whether it is significantly inconsistent with the declared income, or information that suggests that the non-resident parent is diverting income to a new partner. We simply do not think that the commission is ever likely to have such information at its disposal.
Officials are in discussion with HMRC about the types of income information that they will provide to the commission for maintenance purposes, but, although it may include information on certain types of unearned income, it would not cover all non-resident parents with such income. Hence, variations would be initiated for only part of the caseload, which would create an inequity problem.
A further reason why the amendment is inappropriate is that it would apply to all types of variation. Six of the grounds for a variation are those on which a non-resident parent applies to have their maintenance reduced. Five of those are for cases where the non-resident parent has certain expenses—for example, the costs of maintaining contact with their children. We see no reason why the commission should initiate a variation in such cases, as the non-resident parent has at their fingertips all the information and evidence that they need to make an application. If they believe that paying the expenses means that they will be unable to pay the liability under the standard maintenance calculation, they can apply for a variation. Some non-resident parents may easily be able to afford to pay the basic maintenance liability, despite paying expenses. The commission will ensure that non-resident parents have access to information about variations, but it should be their decision to apply for one.
We are liaising with key stakeholders and are currently considering all aspects of the variations scheme. Any resulting changes would, of course, be set out in secondary legislation. As part of that work, we are looking at providing more information, so that parents are better informed when making variation applications. In particular, we are considering how we might alert parents with care that an application for a variation may be appropriate. We are considering developing a system of risk profiling to highlight such cases, which may well include exactly the sort that have been mentioned. We think that that will allow better use of the commission’s resources than would placing an onus on the commission to initiate a variation in all likely cases. The commission will also be able to use its information-gathering powers to investigate applications, once such an application is drawn to its attention. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Selous: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I draw his attention to the two words “may consider” in the new clause. There is no onus or requirement. Discretion is left entirely in the hands of officials of the commission, who are not forced to do anything. The new clause says only that, on occasion, it might be useful to them to do so.
I do not feel that the Minister has specifically addressed dividend income, which I fully accept would apply in only a minority of cases. He made the argument that because the commission could not help in every case, therefore it should not help in any case, which did not stack up. I would like to press new clause 16 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 17

Disclosure of information to parent with care
‘Information which is held for the purposes of any functions relating to child support by the Commission may be supplied to the parent with care or person with care for the purposes of the exercise of any such functions.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is an attempt to get a little bit of equity between the court-based system and the operation of the commission on the amount of full and frank disclosure that is made between the parties. It is proposed for the commission that the parent with care will be deprived of the opportunity to check that the information given is correct or complete and therefore will not be able to evaluate whether the commission has made an appropriate decision by reference to the information provided. In that context, will the Minister tell the Committee what will be the position in relation to HMRC and its usual, quite proper rules of privacy regarding income? We touched on that area in earlier debates, but this is a useful opportunity to revisit it.
The new clause would help parents with care to take ownership of their cases and ensure that they are not kept in the dark in respect of any aspect of them. Then, armed with that information, they would be able to decide whether they wanted to apply for a variation. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.

James Plaskitt: I will try to reassure the hon. Gentleman on this new clause. We already have the powers to make regulations to decide what information can be disclosed to parents under the 1991 Act. Current regulations give the Child Support Agency the power to release all details relevant to the maintenance calculation, including the income of the non-resident parent. Furthermore, the Data Protection Act 1998 allows both parents access to all the details of their case, as it relates to them. Parents with care have access to data protection prints setting out the maintenance calculation for their case, which can be used to highlight discrepancies between expected and actual maintenance liabilities. As such, parents with care have access to all the information that they require to query details of the maintenance calculation that they believe to be flawed.
New clause 17 would allow the commission to disclose inappropriate information, such as the address or contact details of the non-resident parent, to the parent with care, with little additional prospect of an improved maintenance decision coming from that disclosure. We must ask whether the damage to the privacy of the non-resident parent, which is important, and the opening up of the commission to the threat of legal challenge could justify such a change.
The use of HMRC income information as the basis for maintenance calculations under the new statutory scheme would also be affected by the powers that the new clause would provide. The use of such a broad power of information disclosure could endanger the flow of information from HMRC to the commission. Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 in effect prohibits the disclosure of income information that has not been used for the maintenance calculation. As such, the existence of the power under the new clause would perhaps prohibit HMRC from providing the commission with vital income information—the opposite of what I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to be the case.
Although it is true that parents with care have access to a much broader range of information once the appeals process has begun, that is the appropriate forum for access to that type of sensitive information. A closely monitored legal environment is a far more appropriate domain for the release of that information than unregulated disclosure by the commission. Although it is appropriate at the appeals stage for both parties to have access to a wider range of information to ensure that disputes can be resolved, we do not believe that disclosing that type of information in all cases, the vast majority of which will never go to appeal, should be considered. I hope that, in view of those points, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Andrew Selous: I am reassured by what the Minister has said on this occasion, because he put it clearly on the record that all necessary information in respect of the issues that I have discussed could be transferred. On the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

Entitlement of parent with care
‘The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the parent with care to—
(a) make representations, oral, written or otherwise, in enforcement proceedings commenced under this Act and to attend enforcement proceedings hearings brought under this Act, and
(b) apply to a Magistrates Court or an Appeal Tribunal for collection or enforcement pursuant to sections 20 to 28 of this Act.’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 19 has two parts: proposed new subsection (a) would give the parent with care the right to make representations, orally or in writing, to a court or appeal tribunal, if enforcement action is planned; proposed new subsection (b) would give the parent with care the right to apply to a magistrates court or appeal tribunal in order to make their own enforcement actions.
It is ironic that if the commission or CSA were to initiate an enforcement action, the person directly affected—the parent with care—who might have important information about the financial position or assets of the non-resident parent cannot make any direct representations to the court or tribunal. That seems to go against any sense of natural justice, given that they will be directly affected by the enforcement action. Any decision taken in the court or tribunal will have a major impact on the income that they receive.
During previous discussions, we talked about the small number of non-resident parents who have hidden assets. However, the assets of most other non-resident parents will be more visible, but not necessarily of a type that is reported to the commission for the purposes of maintenance. We should not exclude the parent with care from making representations. I am not saying that they should make the determination, but given that they and the child in their care will be directly affected by the decision of a court or tribunal, they should be allowed to make representations.
Proposed new subsection (b) would provide for what the R (Kehoe) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions judgment specifically excluded. At the moment, a parent with care has no right to recover child care maintenance direct from the non-resident parent. That right was removed by the Child Support Act 1991. I accept that in the vast majority of cases a parent with care would not want to initiate their own action, but I am sure that there are examples of parents with care feeling aggrieved with the CSA, as it is currently operated, for making an enforcement action that did not take account of everything. The second part of the new clause would give them the right to initiate their own action, which we think is a fundamental right.
Proposed new subsection (a) would allow them to make representations, and proposed new subsection (b) would allow them to take action, if they felt that that taken by the commission was not appropriate. If exercised, those rights would be important to the parent with care. They might well not be used often; I suspect that the first right would be used a lot more often than the second. Nevertheless, given that they are directly affected by enforcement decisions, they should be able to make representations. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine that matter and see what we are trying to achieve.

James Plaskitt: I welcome the opportunity to discuss new clause 19. The commission will need to keep both parents informed. However, we must be clear: the commission’s role is to consider the position of both parents and the welfare of the child or children involved. Its duty is not to act solely as the representative of the parent with care.
Clauses 20 to 28 contain a number of administrative provisions to streamline the enforcement process and enable the commission to take swift and effective enforcement action. The parent with care has the opportunity to contest maintenance calculations at an earlier stage, and giving them the opportunity to make additional representations will not assist the court further in making the right decision; indeed, it could result in a delay to the enforcement process and incur additional costs.
Where enforcement hearings are held in open court, the parent with care can watch the proceedings, although they have no right to make representations to the court. In practice, however, magistrates courts usually hear such cases in the family court, where they have a power to exclude persons who are not directly involved in the case. The court has discretion to permit a person who has adequate grounds for attending to be present, although they still do not have the right to make representations.
Subsection (b) of the new clause would give the parent with care the right to apply to a magistrates court or appeal tribunal to effect collection and enforcement measures under clauses 20 to 28. That would not be feasible, however, as most of those measures would be administrative and the responsibility of the commission, not the courts.
The new clause would therefore delay the enforcement process and greatly affect the court’s business. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the motion.

Paul Rowen: I have listened to what the Minister has said, but I cannot agree with him. He has not explained how allowing the parent with care to make written or oral representations at a hearing that is already scheduled could delay the decision by the court or the tribunal. As he has correctly stated, the parent with care already has the right to attend, but like someone present at their own funeral, they cannot say anything. In this case, the parent with care should be allowed to say something or to put in a written application. I cannot understand how that would delay the proceedings; it should merely ensure that the court or the tribunal has all the information in front of it before making its decision.
My second point related to whether someone could initiate an action themselves. That is likely to occur in only a small number of cases, but it is nevertheless important that people should have the right to initiate such an action. I would therefore like to press the motion to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 22

Right of appeal
‘Parents with care shall have the right to seek enforcement by magistrates’ court (or, in Scotland by the Sheriff) of the Commission’s assessment of the non-resident parents debt, if there has not been full recovery of the debt by the Commission within one year of the Commission commencing enforcement action to recover the debts concerned.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am sure that I can see a glint in your eye, Mr. Taylor, as we reach the last new clause on the amendment paper. New clause 22 is similar to new clause 19, which we have just debated, but it relates to cases in which the commission has been trying for more than a year without success to recover debts owed to a parent with care.
The new clause would give parents with care the power, if they chose to use it—it would not force them to do anything—to approach a magistrates court or the sheriff in Scotland to seek enforcement of the debt owed to them. That useful measure would enable the parent with care to take some control over their case and would provide an incentive for CMEC to ensure that it was as successful as possible in collecting debt. I commend the new clause to the Minister.

James Plaskitt: I thank the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for tabling the new clause, which provides me with the opportunity to allay concerns—I hope—regarding the future enforcement of child maintenance. It sets out circumstances, as he has described, where the parent with care could enforce a child maintenance debt.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the provisions in the Bill will support parents with care in choosing how to pursue child maintenance initially. We are establishing the information support service, revoking section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991, to give parents with care the chance to take greater control over their maintenance arrangements. Where a parent with care chooses the commission to calculate and collect child maintenance, the new powers provided in clauses 19 to 28 will supplement the existing powers to ensure a faster and more wide-reaching enforcement process.
The commission will have a range of options available to enable it to enforce the maintenance payments, including the deduction of earnings order, the current account deduction order and/or the lump sum deduction order, all of which will only be operable by the commission. Similarly, only the commission will be able to make an administrative liability order, which will allow for the use of bailiffs and, in England and Wales, applications to the county court for third-party debt orders and charging orders that can lead to forced sale of property. Where the non-resident parent is wilfully refusing or culpably neglecting to pay maintenance, the commission can force the surrender of passports or apply to the courts for disqualification from driving, for a curfew order or even for committal to prison.
In view of the extensive range of provisions available to the commission, I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider the circumstances under which the parent with care, on pursuing maintenance in the magistrates courts after one year of enforcement action by the commission, would be any more likely to have success.
I understand the sentiment behind the new clause. Since its inception in 1993, the Child Support Agency has, in too many cases, been slow or has failed to enforce maintenance as assessed. However, allowing the parent with care effectively to take over enforcement action from the commission where it has not collected all moneys due could act as a disincentive to the commission to pursue its more difficult cases. I ask the Committee to consider the wider-reaching impacts of the new clause. It could risk complication and duplication in the courts, without any significant benefit to the children, and it could be inequitable in cases where the non-resident parent owes maintenance to more than one parent with care and/or the Secretary of State. In view of that, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause to a Division.

Andrew Selous: I have listened carefully to the Minister. He gave a summary of the CMEC’s powers to enforce and collect debt and to ensure that debt does not accumulate in the first place, the vast majority of which we Conservatives are happy with and welcome. However, none of what he said in respect of those matters touched on what new clause 22 is trying to do, which is to address a situation where all those powers have failed and the commission has had a full year to pursue debt that has accumulated in spite of the various powers that it will have. Many parents with care have, under the CSA, felt too powerless to do anything themselves to recover the huge amounts of debt owed to them.
It was only in the last sentence or so that the Minister made me think twice about the new clause—when he mentioned the possibility of the power it contains being used to pursue a non-resident parent whose affairs were complicated and who had perhaps become a parent with care himself. In the light of that, I am prepared not to press the new clause, although I may perhaps think about taking it up again in another format. However, given what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

James Plaskitt: I beg to move,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

James Plaskitt: We have reached the end of the Committee stage, and, in one sense, it has been a long journey because we started on 19 July. In another sense, it has not been such a long journey, because we took a long time off in the middle of that and managed to get through the Bill in 12 sittings.
May I first thank you, Mr. Taylor, for chairing our proceedings and for the fine manner with which you have done it? I also extend my thanks to your colleague, Mr. Chope, for the sittings that he chaired. I owe thanks to several other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, who has kept us whipped and in order, and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, who took us through important clauses relating to enforcement, debt and those today that related to mesothelioma. I am grateful to her.
I am grateful also to the leading spokespeople for the other parties—to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for approaching the Bill constructively and with great seriousness and thought. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus, who has been similarly assiduous on many points about which he had concerns. He contributed much value to our proceedings. I was going to extend similar thanks to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but I guess that he is polishing his CV. Therefore, I will extend those thanks to the hon. Member for Rochdale instead, who has borne the brunt of that role.
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, who has given me support as my Parliamentary Private Secretary during the course of proceedings. She has had to be ready at any time to supply me with mid-flight refuelling and has been ever expectant. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone for his contribution, in particular to our debates on mesothelioma. He denied that he was an expert and then proved that the opposite was the case by speaking articulately and with great knowledge about that important subject.
I also thank all of the other members of the Committee for their attendance, support and contributions. All of our sittings have been, without exception, constructive and extremely good natured, and the Bill has been pretty well scrutinised. As a result of our proceedings, we have collectively improved the Bill, and that is one of the main purposes of these sittings. In that respect, it is a job well done.
Finally, I want to thank the Bill team, who have been with us throughout, were involved long before our proceedings, and have been a superb support to me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We are very grateful to them for their immense hard work in bringing this important legislation though in such good shape.
This is a tough area in which to legislate and a difficult part of the welfare world. We are legislating in this area only because of such things as relationship breakdowns, emotion and tension, and as a result of the unfortunate fact that some parents wish to be non-compliant, preferring instead not to face up to their responsibilities. If everyone always faced up to their responsibilities, we probably would not need the Bill.
We are dealing with human failure—it is not for us to judge, but it happens—and it is inevitably difficult to deal with. We know that there is no perfect solution. I was not here at the time, but the same things could have been said about the legislation that brought the CSA into existence. That had cross-party support and many similar things may have been said about why it had to be brought into being. It has not had a happy history, which is why we are now taking a completely new approach to trying to secure a reliable and workable system of child support.
We are building on the lessons learned from the CSA’s history. I stress again that the failings of that agency are in no regard to be visited on its staff, either then or now. They have been working with and trying to make the best of a broken system. They want nothing more than to be part of a good, efficient and effective child maintenance and support system that delivers for the children. I thank them for all their efforts in working with the current system, but also for the help that they gave Ministers as we considered the reforms that led to the introduction of CMEC. We have engaged with them and drawn on their knowledge and experience, and they are as hopeful as we are that we have found a good solution.
It is a fundamental change—a big change—that relies much more on extending choice to parents and pulling the state out of arrangements when perhaps the state should not be there. Hopefully, it will give much more support and guidance to the people to make those choices and put in place the arrangements necessary to support their children.
We are also significantly strengthening enforcement. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we sometimes have to deal with those non-resident parents who would rather not face up to their responsibilities and who, in so doing, damage and harm the reputation of the countless non-resident parents who consistently, steadily and faithfully honour their obligations to their children. We must not forget them simply because the minority behave in that way. We should not cast aspersions on the vast majority who do exactly the right thing.
We are trying to learn from the lessons of the past in making these big changes, which are backed with enforcement to ensure that we do the best we can for the main people involved—the children. We hope and believe that the commission has a far more effective structure and organisation in order to get the flow of maintenance that is so essential to the children, and it is on their behalf that we act.
I thank all hon. Members again for their contributions. Together, we have improved the Bill. I think that we will have provided a good service for many thousands of children in the future.

Andrew Selous: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Taylor, for the way in which you have kept us in order—firmly and fairly, but always with good humour. I put those compliments on the record also for your co-Chairman, Mr. Chope, who chaired some of our earlier proceedings. I also thank the police, the Hansard writers, the Clerks, the Door Keepers and those officials without whom we the Committee could not have worked—people who are not in the front line, and whose words will not appear in the Official Report, but who we all realise are essential to our proceedings and without whom this place could not work. I say that as someone who sometimes queues for tea for his own staff.
Earlier in our proceedings, just before the summer recess, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, said that he would have a summer of reflection—a chance to reflect on what had been said up till that point. That was the case, but there are still a few weeks for an autumn of discernment as we run up to Report and Third Reading.
I hope that the Minister and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling, will reflect on our debates. It is not always easy or appropriate in Committee to think deeply about technical and complicated issues, but I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches when I say that we want to make the Bill work. We supported it when we thought it should be supported, and we tried to be constructive when we thought things could be done better.
I thank the Minister for his kind words. Both Ministers have been courteous and have unfailingly taken interventions, which have often been long, complicated and technical. I have watched the odd moment of slight terror as they turned to their officials hoping for a piece of paper coming towards them, but our proceedings have been seamless, as Hansard will show.
I thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, who has important responsibilities for disabilities and who has assisted me throughout long periods of our proceedings. I also thank our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who has kept us in order, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who sits on the Work and Pensions Committee and whose advice I always welcome.
The Selection Committee has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire to another important Committee, and I want to put it on the record that she is doing important work further along the corridor. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry for his wise and sage advice. He has followed these issues for many years.
I want to put on the record the fact that the staff of the CSA have laboured under huge difficulties to try to make it work in years gone by. They, too, have shared the frustrations of all hon. Members as we have dealt with such issues in our constituency mailbags. It is not their fault that the computers have not worked as well as they would have liked or they have not had the tools at their disposal to make enforcement work as well as it should have done. It is important to put that on the record.

Paul Rowen: I echo some of those thanks, particularly those to you, Mr. Taylor, and to Mr. Chope for chairing our proceedings so well. We have had 12 sittings and kept to schedule, but no one would complain that they have not had the opportunity to express a point of view.
I thank all staff of the House who have assisted you—Hansard and so on—and who have played an important part. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, I thank the two Ministers who have answered the points that we have raised. We have not always agreed on the substance, but we have always been assured that we would receive answers.
This is my first experience of a work and pensions Bill—it will probably not be the last—and, as other hon. Members have said, it covers hugely important issues. The CSA is important and affects many of our constituents. Its staff have laboured on the huge task of getting it right. I know from my office’s daily contact with it that they strive with a system that is broke and not working, but they ensure that it delivers.
I hope that with further changes that we might make as the Bill moves through the House, we will have the basis of a workable solution. I am sure that every hon. Member intends to ensure that this aspect of legislation is dealt with and works properly. That was the intention of the Act that set up the CSA. It has not worked, and I hope that the Bill puts that in perspective. I thank all hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, who have supported me and assisted in moving important amendments.

David Taylor: I shall certainly pass on the sentiments of those who have spoken to my fellow Chairman, Mr. Chope. I express my gratitude to him for chairing two sittings at very late notice, and I thank the Clerk to the Committee for his unfailing patience and excellent advice. The legislative ship, after a long voyage of 13 weeks and 12 sittings, straddling a summer recess, is docking four hours and 40 minutes earlier than the target out time. That is due in no small measure to the spirit and good order that has characterised the debate, for which Mr. Chope and I are most grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-one minutes past Five o’clock.